Racial Profiling... Pros And Cons

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1100808' date='Oct 25 2006, 10:46 AM']
Easy. Nobody is suspected of anything because of the color of their skin. If a black man is riding down the street, he is not to be suspected of stealing cars. If a white man is in a car with his daughter, he is not to be suspected of abducting her.

"Racial profiling" is something entirely different from "including race in a profile". Racial profiling is the targeting of someone because they are a particular race, and nothing more. If a black man is riding a car, then he should be pulled over because he's a black man, and all black men are suspicious; as opposed to the police are looking for a middle aged black man in a Chevy truck, and they see a middle aged black man in a Chevy truck.
[/quote]
I'm sure absolutely no one would argue for "racial profiling" as you define it.
Cops simply harrassing people purely for its own sake is wrong, no matter what race the person is.
But if there is actual or suspected crime involved, this becomes a different matter.

But I'm sure no police department has an official policy of pulling over people soley because they're black. If so charged, most cops would probably say they had some other reason to be suspicious of the person.

Such cases of alleged "racial profiling" would have to be tried on a case-by-case basis.

I think in actual practice, this isn't always so black-and-white (no pun intended) as you make it to be.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1101244' date='Oct 25 2006, 09:19 PM']
I'm sure absolutely no one would argue for "racial profiling" as you define it.
[/quote]
Well, yeah, most people won't argue for it. That doesn't mean, however, that it isn't the de facto rule in many jurisdictions, even if it isn't spelled out.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1101426' date='Oct 26 2006, 08:25 AM']
Well, yeah, most people won't argue for it. That doesn't mean, however, that it isn't the de facto rule in many jurisdictions, even if it isn't spelled out.
[/quote]Do you have any evidence to support that accusation? There is the burden of reasonableness. We don't live in some sort of 'Utopia' that we can ever come up with a perfect law and a perfect law enforcement organization. It isn't constructive to throw in gut feelings and emotional suppositions into this difficult question.

Again, let's look at the practical application(s) we are talking about, such as analyzing people boarding planes as a matter of security.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1101438' date='Oct 26 2006, 09:16 AM']
Do you have any evidence to support that accusation? There is the burden of reasonableness. We don't live in some sort of 'Utopia' that we can ever come up with a perfect law and a perfect law enforcement organization. It isn't constructive to throw in gut feelings and emotional suppositions into this difficult question.

Again, let's look at the practical application(s) we are talking about, such as analyzing people boarding planes as a matter of security.
[/quote]
My evidence is largely anecdotal, both from talking to cops and from talking to people who've been on the receiving end of profiling.

[Cam42]

Hi Abby, how are your flip flops?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1101459' date='Oct 26 2006, 09:56 AM']
My evidence is largely anecdotal, both from talking to cops and from talking to people who've been on the receiving end of profiling.[/quote]Like anything the government touches, there will be bad exceptions. I believe that there will be persons who will abuse racial profiling. They are also the ones who are probably practicing it's abuse now.
But again, in the practical application screening persons boarding planes, screening persons entering the Country, etc., I still say it's worthy of discussion and should be utilized. I will throw in ancedotal evidence of my middle-eastern and black family members who support it, have had it applied (unfairly) to them, but believe it is worthwile in the broader scope.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1101462' date='Oct 26 2006, 09:58 AM']
Hi Abby, how are your flip flops?
[/quote]


Not sure what you're referring to here ...

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1101483' date='Oct 26 2006, 10:39 AM']
Like anything the government touches, there will be bad exceptions. I believe that there will be persons who will abuse racial profiling. They are also the ones who are probably practicing it's abuse now.
But again, in the practical application screening persons boarding planes, screening persons entering the Country, etc., I still say it's worthy of discussion and should be utilized. I will throw in ancedotal evidence of my middle-eastern and black family members who support it, have had it applied (unfairly) to them, but believe it is worthwile in the broader scope.
[/quote]
My concerns about racial profiling, and profiling in general, are twofold. One, that profiles will be abused, and that innocent people will be unfairly harrassed or mistreated as a result. Two, that reliance on a particular profile blinds police and security personnel to non-conforming people who pose real threats.

I'm not saying that profiling can't be a valuable tool ... but it should be used carefully, with proper respect for its limitations.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1101494' date='Oct 26 2006, 11:01 AM']I'm not saying that profiling can't be a valuable tool ... but it should be used carefully, with proper respect for its limitations.
[/quote]I agree with this clear statement, but I didn't get that from your earlier posts.
We are talking about protecting the freedom to move about this Country. We have to think about the greater good, and of course, temper it with concern for those who may suffer from abuse. But concern for them must be tempered with a concern for the majority. Extreme opinions are worthwhile if we are willing to listen to both sides without automatically dismissing them, otherwise it's tyranny of the loudest or most politically savvy. The one squeaky wheel will get the entire waggon lubricated.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1101498' date='Oct 26 2006, 11:10 AM']
I agree with this clear statement, but I didn't get that from your earlier posts.
We are talking about protecting the freedom to move about this Country. We have to think about the greater good, and of course, temper it with concern for those who may suffer from abuse. But concern for them must be tempered with a concern for the majority. Extreme opinions are worthwhile if we are willing to listen to both sides without automatically dismissing them, otherwise it's tyranny of the loudest or most politically savvy. The one squeaky wheel will get the entire waggon lubricated.
[/quote]
Sorry ... I haven't taken as much time to formulate posts lately as I apparently should have been.

To further elaborate: while I think profiling can be valuable, in the arsenal of security weapons I don't think it's the strongest we have. And, I think it has some significant drawbacks that should make people leery of using it.

The potential for abuse is, I think, very high, and my personal belief is that it does happen more frequently than we would like to think. But, data on this subject is notoriously difficult to compile, because records from jurisdiction to jurisdiction are kept differently, and demonstrating abuse is dependent on agencies being forthcoming with records that may not portray themselves in favorable lights. Anecdotal evidence is also unreliable, I realize, but I have heard enough to create serious concerns about the viability of profiling as a common security/investigatory option.

If I were to analogize it to cooking ... I suppose I would say it's like chili pepper: indispensable to certain dishes, but not to be used as liberally as salt.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1101509' date='Oct 26 2006, 11:22 AM']If I were to analogize it to cooking ... I suppose I would say it's like chili pepper: indispensable to certain dishes, but not to be used as liberally as salt.[/quote]Exactly. Salt is used almost universally (I'm not a liberal), but when using chili pepper, people's tastes vary. At a certain level, it's subjective judgement, but at an extreme level, it because unacceptable to almost everyone.
I think that the entire security issues is one that is being run by subjective emotion. I traveled in England before 2001, and they effectively dealt with IRA with heightened security that Americans here would have a fit over. Currently, the US barely comes close to meet the security screening to board an airplane that was required to visit the London Towers. If emotional/ancedotal arguments are removed from racial profiling, then intelligent analysis can apply. Just like the NFL fought the pat-down searches to enter a stadium. People emotionally wanted 'something' to be done, but pat-down searches for 80,000 people entering a stadium are useless. Better to have the 'searchers' wandering the crowd observing people and watching the back hallways and by-ways. Who checks the vendors and delivery people? Here in Tampa, that was called racial profiling because 60% of them black while only 15% of the fans were black (unsupported statistics from an editorial).

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1101494' date='Oct 26 2006, 11:01 AM']


Not sure what you're referring to here ...
My concerns about racial profiling, and profiling in general, are twofold. One, that profiles will be abused, and that innocent people will be unfairly harrassed or mistreated as a result. Two, that reliance on a particular profile blinds police and security personnel to non-conforming people who pose real threats.

I'm not saying that profiling can't be a valuable tool ... but it should be used carefully, with proper respect for its limitations.
[/quote]
Risking people being "unfairly harrassed" vs. risking many deaths by terrorist activity.

It should be obvious which is the lesser evil here!

(Basically all people recently involved in terrorist attacks have been young Middle-eastern men. Sure, security should also be alert to "non-conforming people," but, the statistics being as they are, that is no reason to ignore Middle-eastern males to search white grannies in order to fulfil some politically-correct quota so we can all feel good about not being labeled "racist.")

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1101981' date='Oct 26 2006, 07:19 PM']
Risking people being "unfairly harrassed" vs. risking many deaths by terrorist activity.

It should be obvious which is the lesser evil here!

(Basically all people recently involved in terrorist attacks have been young Middle-eastern men. Sure, security should also be alert to "non-conforming people," but, the statistics being as they are, that is no reason to ignore Middle-eastern males to search white grannies in order to fulfil some politically-correct quota so we can all feel good about not being labeled "racist.")
[/quote]
Uh ... none of my concerns had to do with political correctness. I am all about preventing death and destruction, but I am not convinced that racial profiling is an effective tool in doing that. I'm much more persuaded by things I've heard and read that argue that it's more effective to train security personnel to recognize suspicious behaviours. The vast majority of middle-eastern men are not terrorists. Wasting time focusing on them solely because of their skin color leaves huge gaps through which people who don't conform to the profile can easily slip through.

So, I find it difficult to advocate an investigative tool that has questionable effectiveness, and which results in mistreatment and harassment.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1102001' date='Oct 26 2006, 07:44 PM']
Uh ... none of my concerns had to do with political correctness. I am all about preventing death and destruction, but I am not convinced that racial profiling is an effective tool in doing that. I'm much more persuaded by things I've heard and read that argue that it's more effective to train security personnel to recognize suspicious behaviours. The vast majority of middle-eastern men are not terrorists. Wasting time focusing on them solely because of their skin color leaves huge gaps through which people who don't conform to the profile can easily slip through.

So, I find it difficult to advocate an investigative tool that has questionable effectiveness, and which results in mistreatment and harassment.
[/quote]
Both should be used; it isn't an either-or situation. All I'm saying is it makes sense to pay more attention to those who fit the "profile" of almost all known terrorists.

And well-trained terrorists may not necessarily act "suspicious," and not all people who appear to be "suspicious" are necessarily terrorists. No one method is perfect.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1102001' date='Oct 26 2006, 07:44 PM'] Wasting time focusing on them solely because of their skin color leaves huge gaps through which people who don't conform to the profile can easily slip through. [/quote]Ding, ding, ding, ding!
EXACTLY! Given limited resources, it's better to develp accurate and workable profiles that don't wast time and leave gapping holes. Ethnicity is a legitmate [b]part[/b] of the profile. It's not picking on them for their skin color.

[Red Knight]

I think the pros and cons of racial profiling have been fairly well addressed. I think we are missing the point as it pertains to transportation security.

In transportation security, you have a large number of variables to address as a member of a security team. I would argue that the most important variable is behavior observation.

Being able to notice when something doesn't quite fit in. That is what you are looking for. Race may be the part that doesn't quite fit.

To illustrate what doesn't fit in, I will give an example. When travelling in a convoy through Baghdad, you see garbage along the road (possible IED) so you pay a little more attention to it as you drive along. You see vehicles driving along the same road, you observe the driving behavior for erratic movements, slowing down, speeding up, etc. You are approaching a school zone during the period when children are playing outside. You notice a lack of children. That doesn't fit in. Something bad is about to happen.

My point is, it takes education, training, and the ability to observe and think quickly, to defeat terrorists.

The problem I have seen courtesy of many flights since 9-11-2001, is the inability of the TSA to accomplish the above requirements. I observe the TSA security personnel, and I shake my head. I have heard numerous stories of the observations of others.

The TSA personnel I have observed don't stray from the procedures published for them. They follow them TO THE LETTER and if anything doesn't fit they get confused, you can see it in their eyes.

Can anyone explain to me why someone traveling on official business as a member of the U.S. armed forces should receive additional scrutiny? It defies logic.

A successful security program requires proactive people that have a base of doctrine to turn to for application.

From a military perspective, the reason America's military is successful as it is in combat, is that, in the enemies eyes, we do not follow our own doctrine.

The reson it appears that way, is because our soldiers are trained to understand our doctrine and apply it in individual and creative ways based upon the situation.

If our security personnel followed that model, we would be extremely successful in securing our transportation system and making the experience a little less painful for the average traveller.